Author Topic: John 3:5 (Read 34807 times)

LucasL · « **Reply #35 on:** October 30, 2015, 03:42:26 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: clare
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Yet another silly reply. I do not believe you can produce a single Church reference that explicitly says there is no Baptism of Desire in the same context that the Church has taught it.

Exactly.

Why hasn't the Church condemned the writings of theologians, saints, and catechisms, which support BOD? There was plenty of time before VII to do so. And on such an important matter, the Church would surely have issued a clear condemnation, if it were an error.

It is well known that the Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas was placed on the altar besides the Holy Bible at the Council of Trent. How could anyone imagine the Decrees of Trent being contrary to the Catholic Truths elaborated in Saint Thomas' Summa?

It's St Thomas that must be according to the Pope's bulls and encyclicals and with Church teaching and not the other way around !!

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:04:16 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."

"are to be treated" for the purposes of funerals. This is merely a pastoral presumption leaving open the possibility of their salvation. And, as others have noted, earlier Canon Law has made the OPPOSITE presumption.

Quote

The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."

This is completely false. There's no presumption of salvation ... not for ANYONE who receives a Catholic funeral; it merely means that the Church leaves open the possibility. Conversely, the Church has always denied funerals to ѕυιcιdєs. Neither did this mean with certainty that such are not saved, just that there's a presumption in the external forum against it. And it's also done for pastoral reasons, to deter people from ѕυιcιdє and to underscore the gravity of the act.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:08:27 AM »

Quote from: LucasL

Quote from: clare
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Yet another silly reply. I do not believe you can produce a single Church reference that explicitly says there is no Baptism of Desire in the same context that the Church has taught it.

Exactly.

Why hasn't the Church condemned the writings of theologians, saints, and catechisms, which support BOD? There was plenty of time before VII to do so. And on such an important matter, the Church would surely have issued a clear condemnation, if it were an error.

You never studied arguments in favour of BoD and against BoD , you only believe in BoD because it's easier and "makes sense".

BoDers believe in it because they WANT to believe in it. That's because they "refuse to believe" that those outside the Church cannot be saved. End of story. This has nothing to do with the occasional catechumen who dies before Baptism and everything to do with EENS ... just as it did with Father Feeney.

There are lots of things that the Church does not condemn. So long as people followed St. Thomas in holding to a non-Pelagian view of BoD, the Church never felt the need to condemn it. Now that BoD is being extended to undermine EENS, the Church will no doubt re-examine this question.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** October 30, 2015, 08:10:18 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: clare
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Yet another silly reply. I do not believe you can produce a single Church reference that explicitly says there is no Baptism of Desire in the same context that the Church has taught it.

Exactly.

Why hasn't the Church condemned the writings of theologians, saints, and catechisms, which support BOD? There was plenty of time before VII to do so. And on such an important matter, the Church would surely have issued a clear condemnation, if it were an error.

I put LucasL on HIDE because he seems unable to handle himself in a civil manner.

This is really not a complicated discussion. It is unimaginable to me that a Catholic would question this most obvious Truth. It is well known that the Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas was placed on the altar besides the Holy Bible at the Council of Trent. How could anyone imagine the Decrees of Trent being contrary to the Catholic Truths elaborated in Saint Thomas' Summa?

This just silly self-serving pious drivel. St. Thomas was not infallible. Having great respect and even reverence for St. Thomas does not equate to the Church dogmatically endorsing every single opinion of his (cf. the Immaculate Conception).

Cantarella · « **Reply #39 on:** October 30, 2015, 11:48:42 AM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Yet another silly reply. I do not believe you can produce a single Church reference that explicitly says there is no Baptism of Desire in the same context that the Church has taught it.

Exactly.

Why hasn't the Church condemned the writings of theologians, saints, and catechisms, which support BOD? There was plenty of time before VII to do so. And on such an important matter, the Church would surely have issued a clear condemnation, if it were an error.

The fact that the Church has not solemnly condemn it does not make it a dogma of the Faith, sorry. As a matter of fact, it might and hopefully will be condemned. At this point in time, nothing short of an infallible pronouncement can clarify and stop the abuses that BOD has brought upon our Catholic religion in the XX century, opening the doors to the wide-spread heresy of Indifferentism we suffer these days.

Also, it is a historical fact the Church has permitted the acceptance of errors in the past. A couple of quick examples: the eternal punishment of non-baptized infants for eight centuries and the general acceptance of Copernican cosmology which runs opposite to Holy Scripture and the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers. A most recent example could be the toleration of biological evolution in opposition to Vatican I Council. Each one of these errors are contrary to divine revelation but tolerated by the Church.